User talk:Anarchangel/1 July 09 to 4 November 11

Return to User talk:Anarchangel



Thanks
Thanks for the help on the deletion discussion for Mass rape in the Bosnian War. Without your experience that would have been clearly lost. I have done a lot of work on improving the article. Sorry there was no time to discuss the changes I think I just had to get on and do it and make it look more like a wikipedia article. Any help welcome, as I don't want to be editing this article for ever (too depressing). I was looking around at some of the additions made by the sock puppets and they mostly seemed good well sourced genuine attempts to add info. Oh well kill the evil sock puppets. Crazy thing fighting anti-sock puppet sentiment, copyvio, BLP, NPOV, POV fork and 'article created by banned user' all in one go. Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order
Thanks for your comment about my edit to Sarah Palin; that certainly hadn't been obvious to me. Do you really think, though that that's apparent to most readers? Most articles use chronological order within topic areas, but don't split up topics just for the sake of chronology. --Rich Janis (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on which way it should be arranged; I was just pointing out the fact that there was an existing arrangement. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What? NPOV? What a concept! Thanks also for the exercise to which you motivated me, and indirectly for my discovering your "Factchecker" list & Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Rich Janis (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. I think I will put it here too. Note that there's no rule concerning -having- a point of view. NPOV prohibits inserting that PoV into article content. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage discussion
Thanks for doing some serious work on same-sex marriage. Certainly, there is work to be done, and it's good to have someone who wants to roll up their metaphorical sleeves and do it. However, your recent statements on the talk page risk coming across as WP:ownership of the article, particularly when you make statements of who will be considered toward WP:consensus. Consensus is achieved, of course, through consensus. I'd suggest clarifying your statement in that regard. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I could see that when I was writing it, but: Quite honestly, I don't know how else to deal with the folks (specific examples I should only provide upon request) who abuse the consensus process to just put up speedbump after speedbump. Such people not only do not contribute to consensus, but their every action works against it. If I personally consider them not part of consensus, as they aren't following consensus procedure, and more, is that against WP:consensus? I believe you are right that it gives a wrong impression. I just don't know how else to say it. (after a few minute's reflection) I tried on one page, for three months, and failed, to get past people who only ever put up objections, without citation and almost always without reasoning, repeating ad nauseum, etc. What I finally got to in the end was to make a list of assertions that hadn't been answered, points that had been conceded or refuted, etc. Unfortunately that was just at the time when some admins came to shut the whole discussion down, and they archived the list. I have never tried it on another article, however. Perhaps it is time to see if that would work, again. I agree with your statement. I will do as you have advised. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Anarchangel (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your frustration is certainly understood. This just seems one of those cases where telling the perpetrators not to do that isn't going to change their problematic actions, and makes it easier to portray you as the unreasonable one. (It's kind of like how the first step in trying to cure a bigot is making sure you don't tell him he's a bigot; it may be true, but it ends the conversation.) So thank you for taking care of that. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary
here made me laugh. I've done far worse, I assure you. Good luck on the search for smoothly flowing prose! KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having such a good sense of humor about it. I had no idea you were the author; I guess it's for the best if you got a laugh out of it, but I definitely would have put it more discretely had I known. Anarchangel (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Apology, but my concerns remain
Indeed I believe it was a thorough discussion, and I don't believe the dispute would have been resolved without more opinion, which is why I took the article to AfD. Okay, so you promised to report me to ANI; why have you not done that yet? I never withdrew the nomination. You're in no position to gauge the length of the discussion, as you did not even participate, and I believed the discussion length was adequate before decided more opinion was needed. And what is this nonsense about needing consensus for an AfD? What horrible misunderstanding of the entire process. AfD's generate consensus, one does not need consensus to start an AfD. In any case, I do not wish to argue with your belligerence. I have no reason to believe you have learned from your mistakes; I hope we will not cross paths again.  Artichoker [ talk ] 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, did you really need to notify me and leftorium, when the message was obviously directed to Artichoker? --Blake (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You both confirmed that the discussion had been ongoing. It seemed polite to involve you in my concession on that point. Anarchangel (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * while not a "thorough" discussion, i actually supported artichoker taking the article to AFD. He had said he would do so if i restored the article again, and so i did.  The discussion at the project was not going to move forward, and i had hoped that if he and other editors saw that i'm not alone in my interpretations of our core policies, that they might better understand my point of view and come to a compromise.  While an RFC is often helpful, my experience has been that unless they are watchlist-posted, it is sometimes difficult to garner outside attention - AFDs, on the other hand, attract a greater sampling of the community, and so are more useful and persuasive. --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Art said he would take the article to AfD if you restored the article, so you did. Fascinating. It's a whole other world. Notes: The AfD and Artichoker's talk. Anarchangel (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet influence on Western peace movements
I have made major changes following the decision to keep. Marshall46 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to say about Synthesis
I see that the AfD has closed. What I was getting at by saying WP:Synthesis is that the outside world does not make such lists or distinctions. Actors are categorized in a lot of different ways, such as the Rat Pack. What I look for is reliable sources that think a category is interesting. For example, if somebody made a list of actors who started out as stand-up comedians, I would say that since various critics have noted that this is a path to stardom, such a list would be ok. Abductive (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to Polargeo
Everything you write here will be reposted at the article talk page. You are not welcome to leave messages for me here. Anarchangel (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. I only tried to respond to your accusations against me. I am a 34 year old research scientist with a PhD. I work for months on end in temperatures down to nearly -50 degrees C trying to monitor how the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are responding to global warming. Here is an interview with me on American NPR Science Friday, press play on the left, so you can see how careful I am with the public output of science. I also have a young daughter who is only 4 months old so plenty to take my mind off wikipedia. I'm just here to try and improve the place as you will note if you see my edits on Rape in the Bosnian War or Pine Island Glacier. I try not to come in at the end of AfD debates with all guns blazing without understanding what I am doing. Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users
Anarchangel has blanked a large section of this talk page in order to make it appear as if there are no criticisms. See here. Sorry Anarchangel but that is plain whitewashing and particularly unfathomable after you highlighted my small edit to my own comment. Polargeo (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Please read the above link, you are very misinformed about Wikipedias policy on leads. This is in regard to this. Please don't go around cutting leads to single sentences, it will land you in hot water. Not that you have, I just don't want you getting into trouble. :) — Please comment  R  2  01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Even if it means cutting to one sentence" was a hypothetical example. I stand by it in principle, but it is the far extreme of necessity. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your help and guidance ...
... even though the institutionalized name-calling now inherent at Islamofascism is about what I expected. I pause only to point out, because I think you may find it interesting, that precisely the same basic problem existed at Israeli apartheid, though I personally believe the modern parallels with an unpopular political philosophy were much easier to document there. The outcome, however, was that that article was ultimately moved to its current spot, many major feathers having been ruffled. Must be a feather-size issue. :)

I really appreciated your insights and your impartiality here, and I hope we get to work together again on something. BYT (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy Online
Thanks for your edit at Anarchy Online recently. I submitted it for a 2nd peer review today to help improve and polish, or make major changes if neccessary, for a FA nomination in the future. If you have any ideas -especially on the gameplay section- please feel free or let me know. Sebquantic (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Content_forking
Hi, I see you were involved at WP:Content Forking, and I'm wondering if you'd take a look at my proposed revision to the lead.

This is a very interesting topic so I plan to do a really close reading of the page sometime. But I won't make any changes without proposing them at the talk page first. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism
Anarchangel, I wholeheartedly agree that Hitchens makes a poor analogy, but we need a reliable source to describe this otherwise it is a text book violation of WP:SYNTH. Please read the relevant policy pages WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. If you continue to edit war that material in against our core policies it will only hurt your credibility. Please take this as an earnest piece of advice. Islamofascism is a ridiculous neologism and if you can use reliable sources to show this then you'll be doing us all a favor, but the key is working within policy. Thanks and best.PelleSmith (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple and elegant logical argument. Islam is nothing like fascism and definitions of fascism show that. The sources are of the very highest quality available. Synth was never intended for this. You are not welcome to opine on my future at WP anywhere, and no longer welcome on my talk page at all. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PTL
Sorry I meant PTA (Parent Teacher Associations) and have changed it. Here is a link to an example of the views I was describing. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the smile. As you can see below, old conspiracy theories never die, they just vaguery away. Anarchangel (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Given your edit at Talk:Communist genocide, I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I chose my words carefully. Conflating the UN with Stalin was deserving of something special. Anarchangel (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There aren't exceptions to WP:NPA for such cases. And you would be hard-pressed to find a scholar who would deny that the UN's definition of “genocide” was shaped to get Stalin's acceptance. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Alien Earth Box Art.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Alien Earth Box Art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast list dispute
Please leave personal attacks for talk pages per WP:NPA. I only created the Cast Lists policy point after the consensus on the talk page. I am not claiming ownership of it in any way. I in fact think that notable actors are important to be mentioned in an article, just per originally agreed upon point. Given that point 10 of WP:GAMECRUFT is still in place until the dispute is resolved I have re-reverted your edits restoring cast lists. If the policy is changed or removed in any way, I'm 100% fine with my edits being reverted. However, until everyone comes to a consensus please leave existing edits in place, as that is current policy. --Teancum (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't do personal attacks. A claim of PA without evidence does not amount to much. People like to then assert that such a claim is itself a PA, but I do not. WP wikilawyers falling over themselves to claim injury to back their assertions would do well to adhere to the standard of firmness (as in the legal phrase, "a person of reasonable firmness") that the general population adheres to even on forums. The discusion was illogical and peremptory, and did not provide a proper mandate to create the guideline. Ownership? The guideline is unbalanced and overreaching, that is all I really care about. Revert? Fine. 100%? If abiding by WP rules is a badge of honor to you, maybe you ought to check your perspective. I won't be following your advice about anything in the foreseeable future, and I wouldn't dream of reverting a revert of a revert, so you are doubly wasting both your time and mine by warning me not to.

Point 10 was no longer in place when I restored the voice actor lists, as I had deleted it, in much the same way as Point 10 was in place when you deleted the voice actor lists, after you created Point 10.

The guideline and the results so far at RFC are a double standard. Voice actors are actors, and should be treated as actors are. Repeatedly ignoring my arguments and spamming 'ditto's of arguments I have refuted, those at the RFC have quite fully convinced me that they are no more than Video Game Haters, and none of them are welcome on my talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Debate over interpretation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL

 * I had been alerted to a recently (last week) started discussion about the interpretation of that part of WP:NOT, and you might want to check it out. Although I disagree with you, I think that you've made some good policy-based arguments.  Here's the link .  Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reply was baffling, as if you were talking about something completely different. My best guess is that you were talking about something different - that you thought that my comment was about gay marriage or what-have-you. I think you have misunderstood the point; I don't care about that stuff. The observation wasn't about you or your pet issue(s). My interest is in the CANVAS problem in vacuo, not in any particular iteration - any particular article, nomination, or list. I wanted to clarify that point. If you have thoughts to chip in on the actual issue, I'd like to hear them, but with all due respect, I'm not interested in being an extra in persecution fantasies that don't help build the encyclop&aelig;dia. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re, 'pet issues' and 'persecution fantasies', I refer you to Psychological projection, or at the very least, AGF. Seeing a potential CANVAS in an AfD notification category is a whole other psychological issue which I am not prepared to address. Anarchangel (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the list of the disappeared
Well the List of MIR victims has been deleted, I expected the list to be deleted that’s why I didn’t go beyond the letter C. I guess the significance of the list was somewhat premature for the project in which many administrators seem to be in diapers. Also I got to make a comment in the last day of the deletion process or so because I don’t normally log on to the web via wikipedia with my ID, so the list may have been deleted without me even knowing about it - not that that would have made much difference anyway. Seven days to get a discussion on a page that had very few visitors because it hadn’t been linked to any other pages yet; concerning a topic that covers issues that most Anglo-Saxons or estadounidenses may not even have heard of before. Thanks for commenting on the discussion - Regards_Moshe-paz (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fyi . ..
. . . as you may or may not know, that nice Mr. Dodd went on a fishing expedition and posted a message here. It appears to concern you. And it's so short that I hardly recognized him. Best as always, Writegeist (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So I don't have to track this down a second time (or maybe it is third, it has been so long), this referred to User talk:S Marshall/Archive9 / (diff) which referred to User talk:Simon Dodd/Archive 2009 / (diff)
 * I included Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement (result:Delete) in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Simon Dodd inferred this might be CANVASsing. I (uncharacteristically, and probably inadvisably, because it is never a good thing to say) said 'Huh?'. Dodd said, "Yup!", I said "Nope" (again, not like me and I am proud of that). Dodd went to go talk to S Marshall. I don't think it will ever come to anything; at least I hope not. The idea of putting an AfD on a watchlist to serve an agenda did not occur to me until SD mentioned it. To me, the listing was a slam-dunk, and to this day, I do not think that AFD listings and CANVAS are at irreconcilable odds. On the other hand, I wouldn't really hate it if the listings got removed; all the better for AFDs that slip between the cracks of the listing categories. It would be a drain on Wikipedians' time to have to go through all the AFDs one by one (as I know, because that's what I do) when all they want to do is opine on one type of AFD, but it might lead to better participation in the full range of AFDs (which is what I do).
 * Anarchangel (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazing - I asked an admin who is active at AFD if they had any interest in commenting on an issue of how Wikipedia policy interacts with AFD process. Unprecedented! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Replied at SD talk. Writegeist (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply deleted by SD. Writegeist (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam


The article Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Full text of the Agreement is not suitable for Wikipedia, it is in Wikisource's scope. Actually, there is Paris Peace Accords over there

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tân (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, was not aware of Wikisource when I created the article, full text (& notice) removed, replaced with links to the Wikisource text. I trust that this resolves the issue, if you have any more requests, feel free to address them here. Anarchangel (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your solutions. Have a good day. Tân (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Darwin re-direct
I would suggest that if it was removed by an admin, regardless of geographical location, then surely it's a controversial move request? --Falcadore (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Falklands War Crimes
Thanks for restoring the edits. I had included this important part in the post-war period because it was overlooked and had made frontpage headlines for quite a while between the period of 1992-1996 but strangley it was overlooked by wikipedia. And yes we should include allegations of Argentine war crimes but what is the reason for removing edits that are properly sources using online verifiable sources in English in the form of British newspapers. --Carlosbrunner (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kurnell Desalination Plant
I have left a msg at Talk:Kurnell Desalination Plant. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I added the category Water supply, you could not possibly have removed it as of the time of my edit. You did remove the Water supply-stub tag, as per my summary "+ to category previously linked by Water supply-stub, -stub removed 5:56 9 Sept by User:Alan Liefting." It is exactly this lack of attention to detail that I was hoping to call your attention to. Anarchangel (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Darwin disambiguation
The discussion was closed as oppose, which is unfortunate. I suggest you take this directly to WikiProject Disambiguation and explain your proposal on the project talk page. They should be able to tell you if they can do it or not. I think your argument is sound and adheres to the guideline for primary topic. You may even be interested in contacting User:JHunterJ, who has been very helpful in the past. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev
Thanks for the help. Let me know how you think the article is taking shape. It was a mess when I started, now I'm down to his premiership and I'm hoping to complete it within a week or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Luftwaffe bomber crash near Kingsdown, Kent in November 1940
Heh heh, I'm such a noob, I only just found your comments. Cheers for that. Most helpful :-) I have reverted to Plan X (put it in context in a separate (and better referenced) article about the cemetery they're in). And what do you know?? I've found casualties from the Zeebrugge Raid, A Knight of the Realm, a local casualty who died on HMS Hood, and three of the bandsmen killed in the IRA bombing of Deal barracks...and that's for starters.... Kbaughan1 (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC for War of the Pacific
Hi Anarchangel,

I started a RfC in the Talk Page in order to improve War of the Pacific. I would appreciate your opinion and advice to the theme. Please, feel free to improve the grammer, style or spelling of the text. --Keysanger (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New Article
I am writing an article on aggregate consumer demand and need a diagram illustrating horizontal summation of individual demand curves. This is all still new to me and I don't know if it is appropriate to ask for help. Incase it is where does one find diagrams that can be used without copyright concerns.Jgard5000 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

Citation needed
Songs and such Do you have a citation for this claim:
 * "[A]ny article specifically about a specific Smashing Pumpkins release, such as Doomsday Clock (song), can be tagged with Category: Smashing Pumpkins songs, but not articles about songs by another band that SP has covered, such as Everything is Beautiful or Monster Mash."

See, for instance Unchained Melody. It is routine to include these categories if an artist has covered a song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum Please post your response on my talk. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a conversation about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to get wider opinion on the issue. Both of your inputs would be welcome there. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

check out this thread at the village pump?
I thought you'd be interested since it revives this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)

cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Your comments about Biophys |here are inappropriate. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack." Anarchangel (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks at User talk:Dylan Flaherty. Thank you. - Kelly  hi! 21:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
This is your only warning. If you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User Talk:Dylan Flaherty, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  N419 BH  21:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Having reviewed the discussion and comments by various users, I have blocked you for one week. This block may be shortened if you give an unambiguous indication that you understand the reasons for it and won't engage in that type of abuse again. Alternatively, the block may be lengthened if your attitude is otherwise.--Scott Mac 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Gold Tea
Hello, Thanks for the tip on excluding Wikipedia from Google searches. I know about that. When I search for information about something that may be a hoax, I often see that all that's available in a Google search is a regurgitation of Wikipedia language on websites that just repost our content. To me, that's a strong indication that someone is trying to con us. Cullen328 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewilding (Carnivores)
In case you aren't watching the page, I have responded to you in Articles_for_deletion/Rewilding_(Carnivores). --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Responded to you there again. Also, in addition to what I said there... y'know what - if you don't like or see inconsistencies in Wikipedia policies, then screw it - just don't follow those policies.  It's not like you can be banned for disagreeing with Wikipedia policies.  It's the spirit behind the policies that matters, and with some of the really dumb ones, not even that.  It seems like some of them are almost just there for the purpose of making sure that all of the discussion on one particular issue ends up happening on the same page. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia
Hi im not sure if your contribution was just a comment or if it is also an implicit "Keep" vote.--Penbat (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but I don't vote sometimes. AFDs are supposed to be about the content of arguments, not the votes, per um, (search) WP:DELAFD: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."
 * I've made so many points it might seem like haranguing or even overreaching to the closer to mention votes as well, but if you want to mention that, I don't think it would hurt :)
 * Anarchangel (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion
''Pipe added by Anarchangel (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I originally opined for delete, as the original article was a mess in its tone, hyperbole, and style. And while POV is correctable, its lack of decent coverage failed WP:NF and showed it as too soon for mainspace. Being a coordinator of WikiProject Film, and because the original article made use of improper or even fraudeulent sources, I felt compelled to begin addressing those issues... more perhaps because rather than actually trying to themselves address issues through regular editing, others were reacting negatively to its then current state. After my neutralizing the grossest parts of the article's misrepresentations, I researched into the article's history, and realized a return to its problematic author would not be the better option. Due to controversial subject matter, and believing the article could be further and properly improved OFF OF MAINSPACE, I changed my opinion to incubate. WP:CRYSTAL is involved when a mainspace article uses speculation... but a call of CRYSTAL is not to be used as an attack on any editor's good faith personal belief in the possiblilty that future improvements are possible. I am NOT saying it is suitable now. What I am saying, is that anticipation that real coverage of a controversial film could be forthcoming  (my sincere apologies, but my conscience compells me to remove this; it does not hurt your argument to remove it-Anarchangel)  is reasonable... and incubation off of mainspace of something believed improvable is per both guideline and policy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you right up to the part about CRYSTAL. You did right. You have changed my mind about CRYSTAL, even; it sounds good on paper, but in practice it leads to what it seeks to prevent. However, he was not attacking you. He did not use the words "you" or "your" once. Your replies did, six times. Not that you were attacking, I am just saying, T was addressing the issue at large.
 * You probably noticed my earlier comparison of this subject to The Amityville Horror: A True Story, and my redactions. I will have no part of publicizing black propaganda, and I can only hope there will be continue to be more reliable sources that can support facts showing the subject's publicists as the unscrupulous touts they appear to be than there are for the subject itself.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tsuneyoshi Yamano
I'm sure there are HAM operators that are notable. I know nothing about HAM radio and it sounds like you do. What has Tsuneyoshi Yamano done that makes him a notable HAM operator? Bgwhite (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything I know about ham operators is in that article, the one I cited, probably something on the History Channel or Discovery, and Boys Own Annual #whatever it was. Sorry. Wish I sounded knowledgeable about things I actually know about :) Anarchangel (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Article Incubator/Blooded (film)
The original article was certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, but I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is now encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On Richard Felix Starr
I found your remarks about Starr (on the "Soviet influence on the peace movement" talk page) hilarious. I myself used Starr as a source once for a seemingly mundane event: the 1970 Albanian elections. Little did I know however that, somehow, Starr was able to contradict what the actual leader of Albania (and subsequent Albanian writers) said! --Mrdie (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you may know, he was the leading member of the team at the Hoover Institute. Their propaganda campaigns during the Cold War made the USSR's system to disseminate communist literature to friendly organizations (that society at large, probably because of Staar and the HI calls Communist fronts) look like saints, or at least missionaries. Anarchangel (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The bytes per edit section on your user page
It reads: "Village Pump: Techical. Anarchangel Q: "How many bytes does an edit take up?" Midom A: ~20K WP:SPLIT "There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split. A guideline for article size is... > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided" 20Kb per edit. 100Kb max per article. Therefore, all articles with more than five revisions have more revision information in WP storage than article content. Media: Markedly variable. 'Lady of Shallot' this page, 299Kb, 15 revisions. "King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid", my talk page, 5.92 Mb (5,920 Kb), 246 revisions. A picture better be worth a thousand words, then."

I'm not sure what the point of the section is, as the guideline at WP:SPLIT has absolutely nothing to do with edit histories, but some of the information is inaccurate. You may find Article size helpful. It explains why we need to limit the size of articles, and it also mentions Wikipedia's basically limitless storage capabilities. Lara 14:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In talking about your talk page, you note 5.92 MB (5,920 KB). That's not an accurate conversion. There are 1,024 Kb in a Mb. So that's 5.92 MB (6,062.08 KB), 303 revisions. Although, "null edits" would actually be more accurate than "revisions".
 * Because the English Wikipedia uses UTF-8, one character = one byte (the 8 stands for 8-bit, and there are 8 bits in a byte). Since there are 1,024 bytes in a kilobyte, then 6,062.08 KB gives you 6,207,569.92 bytes/characters to work with. That's far more than 1,000 words for that picture's value. In fact, by Wikipedia's standards, it's 1,212,416 words.
 * I thank you for your calculations of bytes per word; it is good to be able to revise estimates that were off by a factor of at least a thousand.
 * However, 'Article size' ('As') contains within it WP:SPLIT, which I quoted, so there was no need for my attention to be directed to 'As'.
 * As one might expect after reading my cautionary text about the dangers of over-revising articles exacerbated by an almost complete ignorance on WP of the existence of the danger itself, 'As' has absolutely nothing whatever in it about what I then called "revision information", but would now call edit history storage. The entire point of my calculations was to spread the word about a problem which is handwaved away as being something that used to happen, but is not a problem anymore, when in fact storage very slowly but very steadily becomes more of a factor each passing day and will inevitably require radical changes to deal with.
 * No one likes to hear about problems, so I am not really surprised about being blown off, but these dismissals are also completely unfounded. They more often than not, confuse server-side hard drive space with client-side RAM, completely missing the HD storage issue, let alone the considerably larger amount of information in edit histories.
 * I am seeing some light at the end of the dark tunnel here, for Wikipedia, in that many articles are now being locked to all edits other than approved ones. I can only hope this is not simply senior editors making life easier for themselves and represents recognition, at some level at least, that allowing infinite expansion of edit histories is infinitely problematic.
 * "A simple null edit takes ~500 bytes in revision table, ~500 bytes in cu_changes, 250 bytes in page, 700 bytes in recentchanges, 100 bytes in 'text', may grow external storage blob by few bytes or do a compressed text copy (depends). Multiply that by amount of replicas (nearly 10 for enwiki), and you get 20k per edit. A bot which does 5000 edits per day consumes at least 10MB of diskspace a day. Of course, thats just null edits - anything involving changes in links tables or bigger text differences do cost more. If anyone wants to see our core database dataset distribution, a somewhat old snapshot is at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pfjIQrTbpVkaIStok1hWAdg&hl=en - it doesn't show external-store use though. Cheers!" Domas Mituzas. (user name Midom)
 * There are other misconceptions as well, including that Files are the greatest amount of storage. As that link shows, the truth is that they consume less hard drive space by a factor of 40 or so. But these myths can at worst have consequence of, eg, WP having too few illustrations; they are not critically endangering.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say. I was simply pointing out inaccuracies on your user page. It's your decision to leave them there. Lara  16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your opinion on this I.Casaubon (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Los Angeles County Young Democrats
An article that you have been involved in editing, Los Angeles County Young Democrats, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory
Thanks for your comments and edits to the article. I thought it was bogus, partially because of my interest in Chiune Sugihara Jewish communities in Asia. I just had never run into an article or comment about Japanese being genetically Semitic. I guess they're not! Thanks. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure does take the edge off my worries about bogus theories to see evidence that they are bogus. It's the one-sided presentation of them as though they weren't, even though you figure they probably are bogus and hope that everyone else will see that they are, that is the main problem. I like it to Keep, because other people probably come across the same bogus theory and would also like to see evidence that it is bogus. DNA evidence is such a nice tool to have. Anarchangel (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions
Is an editor, Tarc, allowed to remove important sections of an article during a deletion discussion? His removal changes the article Apartheid in Saudi Arabia significantly, making an editor less likely to take the page as well-argued and valid. I further believe that he is trying to trick me into violating the three reversion rule, as I understand it. Another editor in this debate has now gone and removed material form Social apartheid in Brazil. Also, I suspect, a technique to skew or influence the debate over Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. Is this sort of behavior allowed?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. Thank you for bringing to my attention this removal of evidence. Whichever 'side' I happen to edit on, wanting criticism articles kept or criticism articles removed, the other side always seems to want to keep the opinion of the experts out. Mind you, I have not been very successful about including such evidence myself, as you can see from my inclusion of expert definitions of Fascism in the Islamofascism article, and the removal of that evidence. And you can see also by that that I am not partisan, in the usual Islam vs Judaism fashion, in my debunking of idiocy and critique of repression, so you cannot expect my help in future if you are. And unless it is actually blanking of the page, your options are probably limited to linking to the Diff as I just did, on the AfD page. Anarchangel (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Embrace (incubator)
Please stop adding promotional material to this article. The article is about a specific device, not fuzzy concepts like "innovative technology" and "encourages physical contact". It's unsourced and mostly spam. The article should limit itself to well-sourced, neutral descriptions. TN X Man 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further edits to my talk page on this subject will be removed. Please address all your concerns to the talk page. Your edits to the article have been wholly unhelpful. Your characterization of the content is in error; the only material you left in the article was the most promotional of the material (the makers of the product,. Context, the use of the product as it was intended, in the environment in which it is used, is what you removed, and context is required for the article to make sense and have a purpose.
 * Your edit is much more promotional than mine. It has only selling points and credits and the manufacturer's name.
 * The Embrace incubator was a concept developed by a class called Entrepreneurial Design For Extreme Affordability.[1] It uses Phase Change Material in a sleeping bag design to maintain temperature inside the incubator entirely without electricity, making it well-suited to rural areas. The device can periodically be supplied heat with hot water.[2]
 * At the Echoing Green competition in 2008, the fellowship award was won by the Embrace development team.[3] [4] Embrace won the 2007-2008 Business Association of Stanford Entrepreneurial Students Social E-Challenge competition grand prize.
 * Mine, by contrast, shows the product in its use environment, how it is used and why, and only then discusses the business side of it.
 * Low-cost infant warmers, designed for use in lieu of Neonatal incubators, are an innovative technology that will help families save their children, and governments work towards the UN Millennium Development Goals of reducing of infant mortality by two-thirds by 2015. Warmers work at the lowest rungs of the healthcare infrastructure.
 * The cost of the Embrace incubator is less than one percent of the traditional designs, and rather than isolate the newborn, its design encourages physical contact. It uses Phase Change Material (PCM) in a sleeping bag design to maintain temperature entirely without electricity, making it well-suited to rural areas. The device can periodically be supplied heat with hot water. The concept of the incubator came from the Entrepreneurial Design For Extreme Affordability class at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University (Stanford Institute for Design).
 * If you have something else in mind you really object to, let's hear it. With a little more thought applied to the comments, perhaps. On the article talk page. Not my talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Steven L. Herman

 * - Steven L. Herman

Hi your contributions to this BLP have been mentioned here, and a thread has been opened at the BLP noticeboard here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP archive 114 Anarchangel (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You have been mentioned in an incident here. Lionel (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiquette alerts/archive103. No resolution, no action, no comments by third parties. All action by WP authorities I have ever seen has been bad action, but sometimes this is achieved by not acting against bad acting plaintiffs or perpetrators. Considering what is to be expected, as an example of the former, this is a good outcome. Anarchangel (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiAfrica
You mentioned at the deletion discussion that you had Italian-language sources that dealt with WikiAfrica. Would it be possible for you to add the sources to the article? Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me being lazy and only putting the names of the news sources rather than the whole citation, and now it has come back to haunt me. Luckily they all seem to still be there in Google News, so I will add them. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Done. Anarchangel (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hot Coffee Mod
There was a decision on the video game WikiProject's talk page concerning this; the decision was that based on how other controversy articles operate, articles in this category should be about video game controversies (such as the Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 controversy article), rather than things that were controversial. The idea of borderline cases of articles being so strongly about the controversy that it serves as an exception was touched upon, so if you feel that this is one of those exceptions, you could probably leave a note at the above-mentioned talk page suggesting it as one. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)